Why don't more Young Eagles become pilots?

On Jun 30, 7:53*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

These statements do not reassure me. It sounds eerily like pilots who believe
that a GPS will perfectly and perpetually solve all their navigation issues
forever.

Since you don't fly a real plane, why do you even care what REAL
pilots believe?

Real pilots much rather go straight lines to make more efficient time
in their flight, but you have no clue what it's like navigating in the
REAL world. IF YOU DID KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO NAVIGATE IN THE REAL
WORLD, YOU WOULD NOT SAY SUCH AN INCOMPETENT STATEMENT LIKE THE ABOVE.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

Further note:
According to the section labeled "Lesson 5" on the following web
page, statistics indicate that "low-time" pilots are not the ones who
are experiencing accidents in Cirrus aircraft:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/...nslearned.aspx

I have to question the objectivity of a pilot's association dedicated
to the manufacturer's aircraft.

Objectivity of such an organization should be considered, but questioning
per se isn't an indictment or conviction of wrongful analysis or fact
cherry picking. One needs to point out the false factual claims or flawed
logic.

Especially when I see statements like
"... the ultimate safety device: CAPS." That's exactly the kind of
attitude that can cause accidents. The author seems to further believe
that CAPS is a fix for all sorts of situations, such as pilot
disorientation and loss of control at low altitude.

Taken in the context of the entire article, the author appears to be
using the word "ultimate" in its "final" or "last" meanings. When CAPS is
deployed it pretty much _is_ the ultimate or final safety action a pilot
can take - after which she becomes (hopefully) a passive floating object.

I would agree with him and disagree with you that CAPS is one possible
resolution to pilot disorientation and loss of control at low altitude.
He doesn't say use of CAPS is certain to succeed in either case - merely
that timely deployment has a good chance of working.

As to low altitude loss of control: consider a stall/spin on a turn from
base to final at 500 ft. Assuming the aircraft immediately (and
unrealistically) accelerated to 5000 ft/min (~84 ft/sec) and the
deployment had to occur above 200 ft AGL to succeed, the pilot or
passenger would have about 3.5 seconds to act. Not much but certainly
plausible. But the average descent rate is likely to be half that or
less, so more like 7 seconds to react.

I haven't tried it, but you could do an experiment and force a spin or
stall on final on a normal landing on MS flight simulator and time how
long it takes to hit the ground (or pass 200 ft AGL.) I'd be interested
in your results.

These statements do not reassure me. It sounds eerily like pilots who
believe that a GPS will perfectly and perpetually solve all their
navigation issues forever.

And yet the organization claims that the accident statistics of its
members is much lower than single engine GA in general.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

Bottom line appears to be that the Young Eagles program probably doesn't
accomplish anything useful re increasing pilot population. People who want
to be pilots will do what they can to reach that goal - the rest presumably
just enjoy the chance for a free airplane ride.

I've seen figures on multiple occasions that indicate that the largest group
of private pilots (i.e., not flying as a career) consists of men in their late
forties.

And after all your babble about "angry young men" in these groups...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

And after all your babble about "angry young men" in these groups...

I don't see any correlation.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

And after all your babble about "angry young men" in these groups...

I don't see any correlation.

You never do.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 30, 3:43*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

That said, if those ~0.27% go on to become pilots, it would be comparable
to, but slightly better than, the fraction of the U.S. population that are
certificated pilots (~600,000/~300,000,000 =~ 0.2%)

Actually 35% better.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.